Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Genesis 1:20 ¶ Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Genesis 1:20 ¶ Then God said, "Let the waters swarm and abundantly produce living creatures, and let birds soar above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." |
Subject: which came first the chicken or the egg |
Bible Note: Let me try again, starting with a dictionary definition: Science: 1a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. The answer to your first question is no, the presence of light is not science. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of light is science. And that information agrees with Scripture. Scripture further provides that God created the light. This is not in the scientific record. Science records that (most of) the light comes from the sun, the result of nuclear fusion. This is not recorded in Scripture. Is there an intersection of data? Yes. Is there mutually exclusive information? Yes. Is either wrong? No. Do they conflict? Not to me, though others may disagree. Is this concept, in its basic form agreeable with your understanding of Scripture and science? Your second question requires a lot of text. Let me do an end-around, if I might. I attended a lecture by Roger Rusk, highly regarded prof emeritus of physics at the Univ of Tennessee (brother of former Sec State Dean Rusk, if you remember the 60's). He was a solid reformed Christian a well known scientist who had dedicated his retirement years to reconciling science and Scripture. His lecture (3 hours worth) regarded the geophysical evidence in the scientific record that supported the flood story as recorded in Scripture. It was incredible, but I could begin to do it justice here. However, based on that and other study since, I have no problem accepting the flood story as you quoted it from Scripture, and I believe that scientific evidence (insofar as we have it) supports that description. I realize that scientists do not often support Scripture with their conclusions, but this is often as much due to their world view which significantly impacts their conclusion. An example... Here is how the National Center for Science Education describes their mission: "We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out." (ref http://www.natcenscied.org/). This sounds a lot more political than scientific. Let me ask you a question... do I read between the lines that you don't think Scripture and science should agree? Why or why not? |